C.L. v. T.B., 2019 Ohio 1864

Petitioner C.L., pro se, filed an ex parte petition for a domestic-violence civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31(D) on October 15, 2018.
C.L. alleged respondent T.B. threatened and physically assaulted their child and threatened C.L.; she also accused the child’s guardian ad litem of falsifying documents and perjury.
After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition, finding C.L. had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that relief was warranted.
C.L. timely appealed, but did not provide a transcript of the protection-order hearing to the appellate court.
The appellate court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard to protection-order rulings and requires the appellant to supply the trial transcript to demonstrate error.
Because no transcript was provided, the court presumed the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings and affirmed the denial of the protection order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying C.L.’s petition for an ex parte civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31(D)	C.L. contends she proved threats and physical assault against the child and other misconduct warranting a protection order	T.B. (as respondent) implicitly disputes the sufficiency of the evidence; trial court found petitioner did not meet the preponderance burden	Affirmed. No transcript was provided, so appellate court presumed regularity and could not review evidence; appellant bears burden to supply record

Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997) (trial court must find danger of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence to grant a protection order)
Parrish v. Parrish, 95 Ohio St.3d 1201 (2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to appellate review of protection-order decisions)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant must provide record/transcript on appeal; absent transcript, appellate court presumes regularity of proceedings)